Author Topic: USAF tanker deal (Read 1566 times)

Vulcan · « **Reply #30 on:** November 24, 2004, 12:45:48 PM »

Does anyone find it ironic that the US Government would put illegal (by WTO standards) tarrifs and subsidies in place to protect the US Forestry, Steel, Lamb, and Beef industries but when it comes to these aircraft they actually think about giving the order to France?

Staga · « **Reply #31 on:** November 24, 2004, 12:53:30 PM »

Well I'd say there's more than two; Tupolev is manufacturing a narrow body Tu-200 series and Iljushin is selling their widebody Il-96 passengerplanes.
AFAIK both can be fitted with western avionics and engines.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #32 on:** November 24, 2004, 01:24:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by CavPuke
The original deal was nothing more than "Corporation Welfare". The taxpayers were gonna get screwed to the tune of $20 Billion for the luxury of leasing some B767's from Boeing. Now don't get me wrong, I believe that Boeing should get the contract, just not at an over inflated cost to me, the taxpayer. The original deal stunk to high heaven and also showed the corporate corruption/influence peddling that is prevalent in the pentagon (cost a deputy director of the Air Force , procurement official I believe, her job and a federal conviction to boot). Just my $.02 worth Source

We're in 100% agreement.

CMC Airboss · « **Reply #33 on:** November 24, 2004, 02:22:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Habu

The day the French airforce flys Boeing made tankers the US should consider Airbus.

The French purchased 12 KC-135F's from Boeing in 1963-64. http://www.uswarplanes.net/kc135.htm France also purchased several E-3A Sentry AWACS aircraft. http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/infoelect/awacs/fre3.html

Ironically, Air France is one of Boeing's best customers for the 777.

Regarding an EADS sourced Tanker for the US military, it is highly likely that only the basic airframe will be built in Europe. They will probably partner with a US supplier (Lockheed? Northrop?) who will perform a tanker conversion in the US. Such a bid would be competitive since Europe is unlikely to subsidize a US company with European tax dollars. Such subsidies are usually given to companies as incentives to help keep Europeans employed.

MiG

Habu · « **Reply #34 on:** November 24, 2004, 06:15:46 PM »

The tankers were purchased in the days before there was a French alternative to American made tankers.

firbal · « **Reply #35 on:** November 24, 2004, 06:34:21 PM »

I'm against buying our next tankers from Airbus. My reason is that I don't trust the French. What if the US was to go into a conflext, war that the French doesn't support? So would they contenue build and sell our new tanker fleet and well as part for support? I don't think so. Look at the way they have been under cutting us just depo-ly, I cann't spell it). When Iseral went to war in '67, they had 5 Mirage fighters built,painted and paid for but France impargoed the aircraft.
If we couldn't use what we have because we couldn't get parts for the tankers, the taxpayers wasted alot of money.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #36 on:** November 24, 2004, 06:48:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by firbal
I'm against buying our next tankers from Airbus. My reason is that I don't trust the French.

Airbus is not just the French. It's a cooperative of many European companies. Spain, United Kingdom, and Germany also share in 15 some manufacturing and assembly sites. Many other European countries have companies that share in subcontractor roles.

greentail · « **Reply #37 on:** November 24, 2004, 08:13:13 PM »

Ripsnort

Quote

Liberalism's crowning achievement was the New Deal and its last hurrah the Great Society. But those were decades ago, when the Democratic Party's liberalism reflected the values and hopes of most Americans. In the years since, it has drifted ever farther from the American middle class. To be a liberal in America today, you might think, is not to be an American at all. As one conservative has written, there are Americans and there are liberals. Which is to say: If you are American -- a real American -- then, by definition, you are conservative.

George W. Bush--draft dodger, deserter

George McGovern--DFC

Any questions?

"While it is true that not all conservatives are stupid people, it is also true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

http://www.****thesouth.com
replace the asterisks with a fourletter word that starts with 'f'

Toad · « **Reply #38 on:** November 24, 2004, 08:43:16 PM »

Short answers, can't sit long.

Boeing has by far the most experience in building aerial refueling platforms. They've been the innovators from the start.

Boeing builds a "belts and suspenders" airplane. They are overengineered; there are backups to the backup to the primary. I can't tell you how many times in my career I blessed Boeing engineers. OTOH, Airbus tends the other way; they're built to meet the minimum requirements.

Lastly, my brother was on final, in the WX a PHL in a US Air A-330. The Captain was the pilot flying; inside the marker, the Captains EFIS screens all went blank. My brother assumed control. About 30 seconds later, my brother's EFIS screens went blank. By the book, this is "impossible". It just can't happen. Just as the "oh SHIRT!!" echoes died out in the cockpit, my brother's EFIS came back to life.

Neither the Airbus or Maintenance guys could explain how that happened....... so it was eventually ignored.

Sorry guys. Boeing only for me. They're overbuilt, overengineered and they always brought me home.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #39 on:** November 24, 2004, 08:47:24 PM »

Nice post Toad. Yeah, they have alittle engineering background in building tough aircraft that always get you home.

NUKE · « **Reply #40 on:** November 24, 2004, 08:47:40 PM »

Hey Toad!

Nothing on topic to comment on, but just happy to see a post from you.

LePaul · « **Reply #41 on:** November 24, 2004, 10:58:08 PM »

Well it looks to me like Boeing and the USAF got caught kissing behind the barn.

Let both companies compete for the contract. I tend to favor Boeing but let the best plane/concept win.

Skip the Boeing/Made in the USA bias for once.

Torque · « **Reply #42 on:** November 24, 2004, 11:35:14 PM »

Boeing might have to cut some middle management pork to stay competitive and not rely on corporate welfare, corrupt politicians and espionage, the irony.

Sparks · « **Reply #43 on:** November 25, 2004, 07:19:16 AM »

It makes no sense for the USA to buy outside it's borders for defence equipment. Ok you may save a few bucks short term on the price but you're sending that money overseas - then perhaps having to pay welfare to redundant Boeing workers ??? That makes no sense. AND it's mostly French workers who will benefit. AND when you want that urgent modification or new widget you have to wait for the EADS meeting machine to go through it's processes to get agreement from all the parties involved in triplicate and not in August coz the're all on holiday ..........

Get real - if you're going to spend the money - spend the money at home.

As for competition - well the UK government is NOW of the opinion that single source tendering is best ..... why ?? well surprise surprise when you have competition price is the major factor and once the contract is signed companies suddenly find they can't build what they said for the price and so they cut corners (there's a shock) - then you have poor quality equipment defending your country and the companies who built it going bust and having to be bailed out using money no-one had planned on spending (look up Nimrod 2, EuroFighter, Trident etc etc.). So better to pay more and get the job done right - another blinding flash of the bleeding obvious .....

Toad

Quote

Lastly, my brother was on final, in the WX a PHL in a US Air A-330. The Captain was the pilot flying; inside the marker, the Captains EFIS screens all went blank. My brother assumed control. About 30 seconds later, my brother's EFIS screens went blank. By the book, this is "impossible". It just can't happen. Just as the "oh SHIRT!!" echoes died out in the cockpit, my brother's EFIS came back to life.

Neither the Airbus or Maintenance guys could explain how that happened....... so it was eventually ignored.

Unfortunately a known problem - thing is all these displays are not dumb CRT's - they are smart units with addresses on the databus. now one PFD coughs and loses it's address - all the others then say "hang on - xxaa446 has gone so who the hell am I now ??" . A PFD being smart but not THAT smart decides it doesn't know and reboots to tell the FMGC to give it a new address - as do all of it's mates - result black cockpit for 3 minutes. Seems like approach is the favourite time - airline I have been with from July to Nov has had 2 or 3 occurances this year on A320/321. Airbus released new software in summer that was " the fix of all fixes" and then it happened again. When I left at end of Oct they were waiting for another S/W release.

I have got other S/W tales of a Boeing type as well

- there are certain holding pattern entries into heathrow that produce "interesting" results on auto.